Unlike the other government shutdown this one will have far reaching consequences. Forty five million people who depend upon the government's food assistance program will not receive assistance, many of them being children. These forty five million people are being held hostage and unless PP is defunded a group of Republicans are still advocating for the shutdown of our government.

"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Our government is suppose to try to insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense and promote the general welfare.

I don't see how starting wars in the Middle East provides for the common defense, except to make more enemies for the USA, which is opposite of providing for the common defense.

I don't see how letting people go hungry, homeless, and without the healthcare they need is promoting domestic tranquility and promoting the general welfare.

I thought these elected swore a solemn oath to uphold the Constitution?

Wars in the middle east have existed ever sense the original Adam and Eve family was split into two factions, one going towards God and the other revering Mohamed as the great prophet. so you had Jews and their cousins as Muslims. The entire area should have developed into a huge metropolis of industry, yet Africa and the middle east though there are state or country boundaries, continue to be run by the tribal system. So the continuous war are tribes attacking each other. Even different factions of the Muslim fight between groups because some though Muslim worship differently. That is why they kill their own or anyone noy following their faith as prescribed by the winner of the battles. I believe Bush 1 new of the Quagmire that would ensue if he continued on to Bagdad and called a halt to the war. Now years later radical Muslim groups have become strong enough to take on the whole area, and are very good at desert war fare. Myself am glad we are pulling out and letting Russia experience the quagmire they went through in Afghanistan. What makes Obama such a scape goat for leaving our allies, is the way he has done it. The impression left on those people will be forever to not trust us again. Even Israel who continues to exist is by their will to fight for their land and the munitions given to them by the US.

Although I do believe the US would step back in if Israel can't handle what is being thrown at them.

True, but most were overturned or the law amended to take the (more or less) correct action. Not that helped the people injured or destroyed by the erroneous decision. One we're still living with is that "Corporations are legal persons". This allows the Corporation to be sued (hurting the investors) but not the people who created the damage. Then it has been stretched to allow PACs to form and "contribute" to (buy) elections.

Originally the SCOTUS was deciding whether or not a major corporation was, or was not, a legal person and had Constitutional right. It was an acrimonious session, but eventually, by 1 vote, they decided it was NOT. However the Clerk responsible for writing the Summary strongly disagreed. So he summarized that the decision was that the corporation WAS a person.

Nobody bothers to read the long arguments; just the Summaries. It was decades before anyone discovered the error and by then hundreds of cases had been decided on the wrong precedent. So we took the easy way out - and have let a really bad decision stand.

Except, of course, that the States can't take care of those things. If these people are to be fed, housed. and cared for; the Federal government either has to take up the slack, or let them starve in the streets. The States can't even keep the roads fixed by themselves. Oven 49% 0f the American public are on some kind of Federal aid.

I believe the United States Constitution created a robust and powerful secular federal government as the rightful and ultimate custodian of all the birthrights of American citizenship that are plainly enumerated in it.

Moreover, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by itto the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people." Therefore, as much as "states-rights" fetishists insist their states can ignore the rest of the Constitution when they choose, the Tenth does not cancel any of the other amendments or a single clause in the un-amended document, either. It does not give broad permission to the several states to enact or maintain any jurisprudence contrary to the rest of the United States Constitution. So it is patently incorrect to thump the Tenth Amendment as if it is the holy-grail by which American states can codify invidious laws that limit the birthrights of American citizenship, I say: "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."Can you guess where that comes from?

not sure why you think the Constitution gives the federal government "very limited powers" but the facts say otherwise.

Obviously congress does not control all matters of war and immigration and it does not say that anywhere in the Constitution. Congress has the power to declare war but the President is the Commander in Chief of all the armed forces.

It does not say anywhere in the Constitution that the States have power over issues of hunger, homelessness, and healthcare. The Constitution does say the government duty is to "establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare"

The Constitution does say that powers not granted to the Federal government can be the States, but the Federal government is the top of the power pyramid in the USA, not the States. Reality and facts support this.

Our founders clearly did not view the Constitution as immutable. By golly, they very carefully enumerated how changing it was to be done, too. I refer you to Article V of the document which is an unequivocal acknowledgement that our founders foresaw the Constitution might require exceptions and updating from time to time. And by golly, exceptions and updating there have been, eh? I further refer you to the 27 amendments which have, over the course of two-centuries, corrected blunders (like the 3/5-of-a-person-slave absurdity) or added entirely new principles to the original document.

P. S. The Federalist Papers are not the Constitution but the essays of just three -- Madison, Hamilton and Jay --of the many important players in the creation of the republic. It is disingenuous to present them as if they wrote for everyone else.

"The Federalist Papers, specifically Federalist No. 84, are notable for their opposition to what later became the United States Bill of Rights. Hamilton didn't support the addition of a Bill of Rights because he believed that the Constitution wasn't written to limit the people. It listed the powers of the government and left all that remained to the states and the people. Of course, this sentiment wasn't universal, and the United States not only got a Constitution, but a Bill of Rights too"

The federalist Papers were a bunch of letters written to gather support for the ratification of the Constitution. They are not the Constitution. The Constitution says what it says and has been amended and defined by numerous Supreme Court decisions.

What is wrong with the REPUBLICANS do they not have a heart or a soul . I would not be able to sleep knowing a child is going to bed with an empty stomach ! Isn't bad enough they would shut down the government and make millions of people suffer. Who gave them the right to play GOD . Their the ones that past the laws for business to move overseas and shut down factories through out the UNITED STATES, giving the wealthy tax loopholes so they don't have to pay taxes. I think they'll use this shut down as a money grab on the poor and it's a damn shame if it happens. I think AMERICA has lost it's way as a nation.

There have been and are people (adults and children) this very moment people living quote "on the street" some with children because they have been turned out of wherever they had some form of security, and now pushing a shopping cart down the road with a child helping to push. I have seen it in Los Angeles, New York, and many cities and town in between, including those small towns that look so tranquil and nice as you pass through them in about a minute or less. I can tell you from personal observation these people exist because I have seen them. If you are aware of your surroundings you can become adept at spotting them on the road. I have stopped and bought meals for them, I never give them money, but buy it (the meal) yourself or if you are of a mind you can buy prepaid tickets that can only be redeemed for food. If memory serves McDonald's has them at least they did. This is an observation that has been lifelong in my case, I am in my 70's and have wondered more than often why this country can't feed it's own starving homeless people. They feed all the other countries but not ours. This problem crosses all party lines, because I have seen it all my life, the fault is priorities that are set by someone you never see. The US could stop starving people on the streets, water pipes, under bridges, trying to hide behind a tree, or at the back of the building. I will say this if it were not for those churches coming together as a coalition, or the Salvation Army all Christian based by the way attempting to fill the gap the government has ignored. I suppose you could say Churches are conservative, but all political parties go to church, of course you don't see the ones that would not set foot inside a church alive. But their party affiliation does, not mean much as they are outsiders no matter if they have a political position or not. Back to the churches, they pick up a heavy load with the food give aways, missions to get people off the street and more. They attempt to fill the hole that our Government is blind too. So my friend it is all political parties in this country that allows this to continue. Happy Holidays

" Franken wasn’t sworn into office until July 7th, 2009, a full six months after the 111th Congress had taken charge.

And it wasn’t even that easy. Even had Franken been seated at the beginning of the legislative session, the Democrats still would only have had a 59-41 seat edge. It wasn’t until late April of 2009 that Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Specter defected from the Republican Party to caucus with the Democrats. Without Franken, the Dems only had 58 votes.

But even that’s not entirely accurate, and the Dems didn’t have a consistent, reliable 58 votes. Massachusetts Senator Ted Kennedy was terminally ill with a brain tumor, and could only muster up the energy to vote on selected legislation. His presence could not be counted on, and thus his vote in the Senate could not be counted on. During the first year of the Obama presidency, due to his illness Kennedy missed 261 out of a possible 270votes in the Senate, denying the Democrats the 60th vote necessary to break a filibuster. In March of 2009, he stopped voting altogether. It wasn’t until Kennedy passed away in late August, 2009, and an interim successor was named on September 24th, 2009, that the Democrats actually had 60 votes.

And even then the 60 vote supermajority was tenuous at best. At the time, then 91 year old Robert Byrd from West Virginia was in frail health. During the last 6 months of 2009, Byrd missed 128 of a possible 183 votes in the Senate. Byrd passed away on June 28, 2010 at the age of 92.

In all, Democrats had a shaky 60 vote supermajority for all of four months and one week; from the time Kennedy’s interim successor Paul Kirk was sworn in on September 24th until the time Republican Scott Brown was sworn in as Kennedy’s “permanent” replacement after his special election victory over Democratic disappointment, Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley. In a state that is heavily Democratic, it seems that Coakley figured she didn’t have to actually campaign for the Senate seat; that Massachusetts voters would automatically elect the Democrat to replace the legendary Kennedy. No way Massachusetts would send a Republican to replace Ted Kennedy. Brown took the election seriously, Coakley did not, and Brown won"

"Franken wasn’t sworn into office until July 7th, 2009, a full six months after the 111th Congress had taken charge.

And it wasn’t even that easy. Even had Franken been seated at the beginning of the legislative session, the Democrats still would only have had a 59-41 seat edge. It wasn’t until late April of 2009 that Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Specter defected from the Republican Party to caucus with the Democrats. Without Franken, the Dems only had 58 votes.

But even that’s not entirely accurate, and the Dems didn’t have a consistent, reliable 58 votes. Massachusetts Senator Ted Kennedy was terminally ill with a brain tumor, and could only muster up the energy to vote on selected legislation. His presence could not be counted on, and thus his vote in the Senate could not be counted on. During the first year of the Obama presidency, due to his illness Kennedy missed 261 out of a possible 270votes in the Senate, denying the Democrats the 60th vote necessary to break a filibuster. In March of 2009, he stopped voting altogether. It wasn’t until Kennedy passed away in late August, 2009, and an interim successor was named on September 24th, 2009, that the Democrats actually had 60 votes.

And even then the 60 vote supermajority was tenuous at best. At the time, then 91 year old Robert Byrd from West Virginia was in frail health. During the last 6 months of 2009, Byrd missed 128 of a possible 183 votes in the Senate. Byrd passed away on June 28, 2010 at the age of 92.

In all, Democrats had a shaky 60 vote supermajority for all of four months and one week;"

You can check the source yourself if you don't believe the article. I have checked them and they are supported 100% be verifiable documented facts....

""...the CRA was not a significant factor in subprime lending or the crisis. Many subprime lenders were not subject to the CRA. Research indicates only 6% of high-cost loans -- a proxy for subprime loans -- had any connection to the law. Loans made by CRA-regulated lenders in the neighborhoods in which they were required to lend were half as likely to default as similar loans made in the same neighborhoods by independent mortgage originators not subject to the law."

the sub prime loans were almost entirely done in the private sector without involvement from Freddie or Fannie which were unable to do these loans until the government regulations were relaxed because Freddie and Fannie were losing market share.

No fact support the fairy tale you are promoting, all the facts support what I have posted.

The fact is your sources are wrong and the foolish tales you believe have been debunked over and over again.

Those toxic assets were not sub prime loans, they were financial instruments put together by Wall Street that were fraudulently rated. Wall Street crashed the economy not the CRA or poor minorities, no matter how many times you repeat the lies

""More than 84 percent of the subprime mortgages in 2006 were issued by private lending institutions... Private firms made nearly 83 percent of the subprime loans to low- and moderate-income borrowers that year."

As University of California, Irvine law professor David Min has argued, saying the government directly created either the housing bubble or subprime loans has a serious problem with the timing. "From 2002-2005, [GSEs] saw a fairly precipitous drop in market share, going from about 50 percent to just under 30 percent of all mortgage originations. Conversely, private label securitization [PLS] shot up from about 10 percent to about 40 percent over the same period. This is, to state the obvious, a very radical shift in mortgage originations that overlapped neatly with the origination of the most toxic home loans."

" Private label loans "have defaulted at over 6x the rate of GSE loans, as well as the fact that private label securitization is responsible for 42 percent of all delinquencies despite accounting for only 13 percent of all outstanding loans (as compared to the GSEs being responsible for 22 percent of all delinquencies despite accounting for 57 percent of all outstanding loans)." The issue isn't this fake "high risk" category, it is subprime and private label origination."

"Here’s what really happened. During the housing bubble of the mid-2000s, over-leveraged shadow banks packaged risky subprime mortgage loans into securities and passed them along to consumers that were often unaware or misinformed of the underlying risks. It was the poor performance of these private-label securities — not those issued by Fannie and Freddie — that led to the financial meltdown, according to the bipartisan Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission."

"To be sure, Fannie and Freddie did eventually take on riskier mortgage products — so-called “Alt-As” — in 2006 and 2007, but they lagged the private-label market significantly in an effort to win back market share. In the end, Fannie and Freddie failed primarily because they are entirely focused on residential mortgage finance, unlike most private investment firms. So the government-sponsored enterprises were hit especially hard by the historic drop in home prices starting in 2006.

The new Fed study adds to a mountain of evidence debunking the politically-convenient conservative myth that government housing policies — not Wall Street — caused the foreclosure crisis. As Congress and the Obama administration consider how to best wind down Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in the coming months, facts should drive the debate, not a surreptitious campaign to rewrite the history."

convenient of you to try to use 2010 when the crisis was caused by the housing bubble and private financial companies before 2008

Fannie and Freddie were used to help clean up the huge mess created by the private sector, so of course after the crisis had hit they would be involved.

But that doesn't change the facts they had little to almost nothing to do with the financial crisis that the private sector caused. Republicans pushed the Alan Greenspan spin that Wall Street could regulate itself.

Greenspan later said he was wrong....after the US Treasury and the FED used 16 to 30 trillion of tax payer backed $$ for bailouts...

"We on Wall Street do not deny our part. We created these securities, we rated them triple-A, we traded them without understanding them. Now that they have gone bad, we are real close to getting the rest of the country to take them off our hands.

"Better targets for blame in government circles might be the 2000 law which ensured that credit default swaps would remain unregulated, the SEC’s puzzling 2004 decision to allow the largest brokerage firms to borrow upwards of 30 times their capital and that same agency’s failure to oversee those brokerage firms in subsequent years as many gorged on subprime debt."

All the facts dispute your opinion on this subject and your opinion on this subject has been thoroughly debunked

"Fresh off the false and politicized attack on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, today we’re hearing the know-nothings blame the subprime crisis on the Community Reinvestment Act — a 30-year-old law that was actually weakened by the Bush administration just as the worst lending wave began. This is even more ridiculous than blaming Freddie and Fannie.

The Community Reinvestment Act, passed in 1977, requires banks to lend in the low-income neighborhoods where they take deposits. Just the idea that a lending crisis created from 2004 to 2007 was caused by a 1977 law is silly. But it’s even more ridiculous when you consider that most subprime loans were made by firms that aren’t subject to the CRA. University of Michigan law professor Michael Barr testified back in February before the House Committee on Financial Services that 50% of subprime loans were made by mortgage service companies not subject comprehensive federal supervision and another 30% were made by affiliates of banks or thrifts which are not subject to routine supervision or examinations. As former Fed Governor Ned Gramlich said in an August, 2007, speech shortly before he passed away: “In the subprime market where we badly need supervision, a majority of loans are made with very little supervision. It is like a city with a murder law, but no cops on the beat.”

Not surprisingly given the higher degree of supervision, loans made under the CRA program were made in a more responsible way than other subprime loans. CRA loans carried lower rates than other subprime loans and were less likely to end up securitized into the mortgage-backed securities that have caused so many losses, according to a recent study by the law firm Traiger & Hinckley "

"Here's some data to back that up: "More than 84 percent of the subprime mortgages in 2006 were issued by private lending institutions... Private firms made nearly 83 percent of the subprime loans to low- and moderate-income borrowers that year."

As University of California, Irvine law professor David Min has argued, saying the government directly created either the housing bubble or subprime loans has a serious problem with the timing. "From 2002-2005, [GSEs] saw a fairly precipitous drop in market share, going from about 50 percent to just under 30 percent of all mortgage originations. Conversely, private label securitization [PLS] shot up from about 10 percent to about 40 percent over the same period. This is, to state the obvious, a very radical shift in mortgage originations that overlapped neatly with the origination of the most toxic home loans."

"Research from the Federal Reserve by Neil Bhutta and Glenn B. Canner (helpfully summarized in this Randy Kroszner speech), argues that the CRA couldn't have been behind the subprime and housing bubbles. "The very small share of all higher-priced loan originations that can reasonably be attributed to the CRA makes it hard to imagine how this law could have contributed in any meaningful way to the current subprime crisis." Only six percent of higher-priced loans (their proxy for subprime loans) were extended by CRA-covered lenders to lower-income borrowers or CRA neighborhoods."

I started out of high school as a republican. I voted for Reagan in 1984, and Bush in 1988. After that I got more involved in trying to find out what was really going on and ignoring the media and trying to get sources for everything I could.

Now I vote for who ever supports the working class, which is usually a democrat.

See 24 More Replies to Richard Caslon ("Unlike the other government shutdown this one will have far reaching consequences. Forty five million people who depend upon the government's food assistance program will not receive assistance, many of ....")

Additional Post Search Options:

Topics Found

Members

Posts

Do you want to quickly add followers, meet new friends, or simply connect with existing contacts to discuss the news?

Do you have an email group that shares news items?

It's now super easy and rewarding to find and add friends on Yabberz.

This post has either already been PowerShared, not eligible for PowerShare or is not your post. Return Home

Discussion Snippet

Points History

Sponsorship Status

Private Message

Don't share personal details with someone you don't know well or someone you know but who is acting strange. Watch out for scams. Never post a screen shot of a private message session to a public thread (doing so can lead to automatic ban). Unfollow to stop receiving messages from member, block to end all communication with member, and report SPAM/harasmment with Flag. 5pts per sent message.

Like Yabberz on Facebook

Share a 2nd Time and Earn Rewards.

Yabberz Rewards:

Sharing links to social media is a great way to help grow membership. If a new member joins as a result of a post that you have shared to Social Media (Twitter, Facebook, or Google Plus), you will
receive:

1-month of
VIP Membership
for FREE

+100 point award reward from Yabberz Rewards

New member will automatically follow you

Watch for it in your notifications under replies.

Confirm Close

You actively editing a post, Confirm Close, to close this window. Note a draft post is already saved under My Drafts in case you change your mind later.

✓ Refer members using "Find Friends" to send invitations. Each member referral earns 1-month of Free VIP Status. If your are already a paid VIP member, the next month following each referral will be free.

Having troubles? - contact support@yabberz.com or click:

Or Login Using Social Media

Notifications

The notification bell (top right corner) flashes when you have received a reply, earned point rewards, or have other messages. Check it now for a message from Yabberz's CEO.

Ratings & Points

Use the slider to rate comments based on quality and content. When down-rating, providing an explanation is recommended. Points help a post gain visibility and readership, as well as are required to share within Yabberz and sponsor posts on Yabberz.

Posts

Post meaningful articles, links, images, videos and commentary on news events. Be respectful, don’t curse or name call. You can share posts for 25 points and sponsor posts for 100 points. So long as you at least have 1 point, you can rate content.

Bans

You will be banned from Yabberz for reposting red flagged content, direct threats of violence, hate or racist speech, repeatedly demeaning other members, posts of pornographic or highly-offensive material or images.

You have been sent an e-mail with a link to confirm and complete your account. Doing so is required before posting or replying to content. Note, some users may need to check their Spam folder for the email. Having troubles? - contact support@yabberz.com

This user will be blocked and not see your posts when logged in. You will also not see this user's posts when logged in.
In order to later unblock this user, visit the blocked user tab found on your about me profile page. Click confirm block to complete.